The crowning event at the Highland Games in Scotland is the tug-of-war. Eight brothers in arms square off against eight others across the line, gripping a rope as big as the biceps they wrap around it.
I can’t help but think how similar the world of politics is.
Those of us who wish to preserve constitutional government and human flourishing find ourselves in a great tug-of-war with a progressive Left that values neither.
In a tug-of-war, the goal for each team is not just to hold its side but to “drive out” the other team. On each end of the contest stand the “anchors,” burly men who loop the rope around their shoulders and dig in with all their weight. They will not be moved.
On the near ends of the rope are men with a different role to play. Face-to-face with their opponents, they look for warning signs of “lifts” (heaves) from the other team and seek opportunities to execute one of their own.
The rest of the men do their best to act in harmony, each one occupying that place on the line best suited to his strength, size, and stamina. One man often provides commands to the rest of the team.
To win, all eight on a side must act in unison; one deviation and the opponents gain the leverage they need to win. Though each man has a different role to play, everyone on the rope is critical to victory. A letup by one may lead to a letdown for all.
We’ve been getting whipped of late in the great tug-of-war, in part because we’re just not as good as the other side at working together.
As with the eight men on the rope, multiple players are in this contest. Some are cogitators, think-tank types whose view from the ivory tower provides and reinforces the long-term perspective those on the ground need.
Some are educators, whose job isn’t to develop new ideas but to seed them into the populace; the best way to change the next generation is to raise it.
And promulgators include journalists, entertainers, and advertisers who socialize and popularize ideas.
For the past 50 years, cogitators on the Right have held their own, but we’ve been playing catch-up in the realms of education and promulgation. That said, two additional types of players who don’t fully appreciate each other’s roles have padded our side’s losing record: agitators and legislators.
Agitators are like the immovable brutes on the far end of the rope. They uncompromisingly dig in on an issue. They protest. They write. They call. They engage. They don’t settle for half a loaf.
Their work vitally serves to shift the Overton window. This doesn’t mean that agitators must be always agitated; the most effective aren’t cranky or rude, but endearing and determined. They are vital to the cause.
Legislators, by contrast, operate face-to-face with the opposition, looking into their eyes across the aisle every day. They must continually weigh the trade-offs between securing half a loaf or none. They strategize. They negotiate. They bob and weave. Their objective is to tug issues in the right direction, knowing that in most cases they can’t get all they want. They are also vital to the cause.
Agitators and legislators share a common goal but, importantly, pursue it via different tactics. Principled legislators are grateful for faithful agitators who work to shift the issue their way. Practical agitators are glad to know they have cunning legislators doing what they can to bring about common objectives.
But they must trust each other, and that’s where the work so often breaks down. Especially of late.
The Tug of War Association Handbook says the sport “has many brilliant teams but no individual stars.” This is the challenge of being a legislator in our media-saturated age.
Legislators face cameras everywhere from congressional hearing rooms to their own living rooms, feeding cable audiences desperate for their daily dish. Legislators who become nothing more than agitators may gain political stardom but also lose their ability to legislate.
The handbook goes on: “In addition to the hard, physical effort and grit demanded by the individual there must be the highest order of self-discipline and cooperation in the interest of the team.”
Agitators with little patience or understanding of the art of the possible develop unrealistic expectations. Once they convince themselves that legislators have become capitulators, they press the detonator.
But good intentions don’t justify bad strategy, and forgetting which side you’re digging in against is no way to win. Only by working together, respecting each other’s roles, can agitators and legislators pull things in the right direction.
While tug-of-war appears to be a game of mere strength, it’s really a game of strategy. As an agitator myself, I get frustrated when I perceive legislators capitulating to the other side. But as a businessman who has practiced the art of give-and-take for decades, I appreciate the fine art of getting things done.
And I’ve learned that when circumstances aren’t going the way I want or expect, I either can complain about what’s happening or reframe the challenge. The latter is much more productive.
Progressives are better at this game, which is why the rope has been steadily moving leftward. In part it’s because they’re collectivists, both philosophically and temperamentally, who collaborate better than those of us with more individualist tendencies.
It’s also because of progressives’ willingness to be patient. “The long march through the institutions” has been underway for nearly a century now.
Perhaps we can learn something from the rest of the men on each side in a tug-of-war (who outnumber those on the ends by 6 to 2).
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, two presidents who outperformed in accomplishing their objectives, both had a keen ability to “read the rope,” knowing when principled agitation was called for (Reagan’s walking away from the 1986 Reykjavík summit) or practical legislation was the ticket (Clinton’s embracing welfare reform in 1996). They both got a lot done.
I want to win. You want to win. We want to win together. On any given issue at any given time, we’re going to make our own determinations regarding whether what we’re witnessing in the legislative arena is spineless capitulation or diplomatic negotiation.
Regardless of where we come down on that, we must remain strategic, disciplined, and focused on winning the war, not just this battle.
There is a time agitators must call legislators to account. There’s a time legislators need agitators to provide room for them to maneuver.
If we understand “agitators vs. legislators” to mean in contrast to one another rather than against one another, we’re more likely to get the balance correct.
Agitators work from the end in mind. Legislators work toward the end in mind.
Like the fiery Sam Adams and the circumspect John Adams, they’re key players in the same cause. Sam and John were second cousins, but many people thought of them as brothers.
We could do worse than emulate their example.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
